Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajaypal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50967
1 WP-16448-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 16448 of 2016
AJAYPAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.V.S. Sunil Rao - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard
finally.
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash the impugned PPO dated 18.05.2016 Annexure
P-4.
(ii) To direct the respondents to restore the benefit of one
increment granted earlier and prepare fresh PPO after adding
the same to the pension.
(iii) To direct the respondents to refund the amount recovered
from the petitioner.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may
kindly be granted in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got retired
w.e.f. 29.02.2016 and thereafter, the respondents, by the order impugned, have
proposed recovery of an amount of Rs.2,01,642/- from the petitioner referred in
the PPO (Annexure-P/4) on the ground of wrong pay fixation. He submits that
without there being any false representation or any voluntary undertaking given by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50967
2 WP-16448-2016
the petitioner at the relevant point of time, the amount paid to him under the head
of excess payment that too from his retiral dues, cannot be made from him.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the reply
filed by the respondents, an Indemnity Bond was submitted by the petitioner at the
time of retirement, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the
authority.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal
of record, I am of the opinion that though because of wrong pay fixation, the
petitioner was wrongly paid excess payment, but that mistake was never brought
to the notice of the petitioner and it came to the notice of the authority when the
petitioner's retiral dues were being determined. Now, the respondents, on the basis
of undertaking given by the petitioner that too at the time of his retirement have
deducted the amount alleged to have been paid to him in excess. The Full Bench
of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey & Others (W.A. No.815 of 2017) decided on 06.03.2024 taking note of the
law laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab &
Others Vs. Rafiq Masih & Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , in paragraph-35
of its judgment, has observed as under:-
"Answers to the questions referred 35.
(a) Question No.1 is answered by holding that recovery can be effected
from the pensionary benefits or from the salary based on the undertaking
or the indemnity bond given by the employee before the grant of benefit
of pay refixation. The question of hardship of a Government servant has
to be taken note of in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Larger
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir
(supra). The time period as fixed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra)
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 requires to be followed. Conversely an
undertaking given at the stage of payment of retiral dues with reference
to the refixation of pay or increments done decades ago cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50967
3 WP-16448-2016
enforced.
(b) Question No.2 is answered by holding that recovery can be made
towards the excess payment made in terms of Rules 65 and 66 of the
Rules of 1976 provided that the entire procedures as contemplated in
Chapter VIII of the Rules of 1976 are followed by the employer.
However, no recovery can be made in pursuance to Rule 65 of the Rules
of 1976 towards revision of pay which has been extended to a
Government servant much earlier. In such cases, recovery can be made in
terms of the answer to Question No.1.
(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking given by
the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of
refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is therefore not enforceable
in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (supra) unless the
undertaking is given voluntarily."
In view of the aforesaid legal preposition, I am of the opinion that the
amount said to have been paid to the petitioner in excess cannot be recovered from
him that too after his retirement, as such, the impugned recovery, if any, is made
from the petitioner's retiral dues, the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are
directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner within a period
of three months from today with interest @6% till the date of actual payment made
to the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of .
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Prachi
